COMMWn"h"-BASED DTITIATNES - ~ P L C V C C L L oh

TO PROVIDE AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN CHICAGO ?; / ,w r . - L ; - , V J I ? L ~ ;

Teresa C6rdova

l 3 e problem of alfordabte housing is reflected in the gap between the costs of housing and the amount of money that people have available to pay for that housing. A large enough gap can lead to living in overcrowded and often unsafe conditions and even to hamelessness. Households that spend more than 30 percent of their income on housmg pay more rhan what feder2.I government standards suggest is reasonable. According to that standard. 52 percent of all renter households in the city of Chicago had "excessive" 'hosing cosrs in 1987 (Sheft, 1991, pp. 54-55). The Iower the income of a household. the l aq t r the proponion spent on housing, and the harder it is to suetch the remaining percenr- age to cover other Living costs (Voss, 1990). Moreover, house- hold characteristics such as type and size affect the abhty to pay for other necessities once the housing costs are paid. Some house- holds pay what they have to in order to obtain housing bur: hen are unable to meet their nen-shelter rids-a sitwtlon that hu been called "shelter poven-y" {S~one. 1989). Furthermore, mm- sures of affordability do not t a ke inro account the availability and quality of housing, thus funhe: disguising an even mare severe housing crisis. Utilities and additional costs of housing make it increasingly difficult for the low- md moderate-income nousehold to rent. let alone buy, pmpeny.

The housing cnsis that emerged during the 1980s was exacer- bated by changes in fdesal houssng policies. The federal govern- ment cut funds to 1 4 governments ior hommwnership pro, o m s for low- and mderarte-mcorne households. It adso cut assistance to law- and moderate-income tenants eligible for housing aid and decreased the amount of f eded loans ro low- and moderate-in- come homeowners for the renabihtarion of substandard units. Housing assistance programs ior the elderly, the handicapped, Native peoples, and farmers were also cut. In addition, the f d d government cut its suppon for the construction of new

Teresa CdrdDva

housing by the private sector and reduced the tax incentives to the pnvate sector for the consmcrion of r e n d housing. The ptoduc- non and rehabdimtion of public housing was anorher target of federal cuts. Indeed, expenditure ruts in housing are grmtcr than curs in any other fcderal activity. Budget authority for the De- p m e n t of Housing and Urban Deveiopment NLTD) was reduced from $35.7 billion in 1980 to $15.2 billion in 1987. In 1978, the HUD budget was 7 percent of the toral federal budget; by 1987, it was down to 1 p m n l (Schwanz, Ferlauto, and Hoffman, 1988, pp- 46-52).

The small amount of state and local funds for housing com- pounded market conditions marked by rising interest rates, in- creased costs of construction and rehabihanon, and l aqe gev- ernment subsidies far downtown development. This era of neigh- borhood neglect by federal, state, and louE policies was dso an era of neighborhood response, with the rise of nonprofit csrnmu- nity-based development caqrations and advocacy organizations. TIE his to^ of nenptofrt cornmunixy development efforts is one of struggle for resources and techcal how-how. Although access to both has improvd, it is probablv stdl safe to say that commu- nity development groups are "saddled with goals and obiectives that are far beyond their resources achi~ve" (Keyes, 1971).

Despite. the limitations, community-based wgamzauons have become key actors in the development of affordable housing for low- and rnderap-income households. Indeed, Gale Cincerta. executive director of the National Training and Informauon Cen- ter, says that "nonurofits are the cnticd mass at the base, she ones really doing the worke (Gerhardstein, 199C). This chapter is a bnef examznation of affordable housinz effom by community- b& organiarions in Chicago.

Community initiatives to develop affordable housing are often founded on principles of n e i g h b o r h d preservation and service to low- and mderare-income households. A srarement from Peoples Housing in Chicago's Rogers Park community illustrates h e fer- vor and orientation of the commirmenr.

In thc fall of I979 a group of low-income neighborhood resi- dents dared to dream an impossible dream. Having just com- pleted a successful petition drive in favor of new subsidized

Gmnmni#-Bared Iniriarivex in Chicago 3

housing, his group hopefulIy asked. "Why not us? W h y can't we develop thns housing, raher than w outside developer who doesn't really h o w our communitl;?" . . . this small band of low-income residents were undauatred in their pvrsuit of a better l i fe for themselves, and far their neighborhood, through mm- rnump-cantrolled development. . . . Today, aImost ten years later, Pmples Houslng is a strong advocate for socid justice in icq c a m u n i t y (Peoples Housing, n.d.1.

The Neighborhd Institute (Zh?), a nonprofit affiliate of South Shore Bank in Chicago, describes its commitment as " h e listic" and concerns itself with both the human and physical n e d s of its community: "Our primary role is to stirnulare a climate whereby p p l e have options and oppomnities to heEp them- selves." Dorris Pickens, president of TNI, s y s that "communities have to be developed from wim" (Pickens, 1989).

A recent call for n e i g h b o r n d participation from the Ken- wd-Oakland Community Or:anmtion, located on Chcago's south side, says: "For too long, too many of us have sat back waiting for someone other than ioursclves to bring decent, livable housing-which we can affard-to use. Well, it will not happen unless we join in the movement to makt it happen. Join the movement for affordable housing" (Kenwood-Oakland Communiq Organization, 1990).

The president's letter in the annual report of the Bickerdh Redevelopment Corporation reveals; the value placed in community control and pride. "To be sure evcrybdy gets a decent place to five, at low cost, and more impoftant that you should be proud of where you live, I want to urge you to continue to be active in controlling the redevelopment of your ne ighborhd" fBickerdka Redevelopment, 3985).

These community organizations also understand that their neighborhood conditions are shzped by external factors such as redlining by banks and job dislocasion. In many cases, housing development is parallel to economic development, For example, Pmpies Housing, in addition to its housing activities, has fomu- lared long-range plans for business ventures.

Community-based initiatives for affordable hausing ate di- rected toward promoting hemmwnership, renovating old or aban- doned buildings, and censuucting new housing units. The ability to carry out this housing azenda requires soph~sticated leadership, start-up funds, tmhnical know-how, and creative financing. Advocaey efforts and public-private partnershps have helped to establish p rogms to meel hose needs. The c o m r n u n i ~ approach

4 Teresa Cdrdova

to housing is oriented toward neighborkid empowerment, z sig- naled through the organization of blmk clubs and alternative management structures. Community land trusts, cooperative own- ership programs, and tiered financing are examples of key strat- egies of community-based housing developmenr.

NATIONAL LOBBYTNG EFFORTS

Community development organhtions promote homeownership and multi-family rental housing by fachtating loan packages, dirxting individuals to government programs, and supplpg information. Their abiltty to provide these services fiz been enhanced by several national lobbying efforts that resu1w.d in significant federal legislation in 1970s.

Cornunify Reinvesmtenr Act

Housing abandonment, and thu; a decr~ase in the supply of hous- ing, has been directly tied to bankvlg policies, particularly rdlining (hfeyerson, 1986a). Concern about the impact of reb- lining practices was the impetus for lobbying efforts that resulted in the Community Reinvestment Act ( C U ) of 1977. The Na- tional Training and Information Center, lxated in Chicago, pro- vided the leadership for this lobbymg effon, which involved a coalition that crossed racid and regional boundaries. The CRA provides for a procedure whereby banks can be pressured to halt their redlining policies and to reinvest in neighborhoods they had previously left disinvested. For example. under CRA, bank regu- lators can refuse permission to a bank hoIding company to acquire another bank or bank holding company if any of the banks in- volved have not adequately responded to the credit n&s of local communities. Under these regulations, an individual or organiza- tion can petition the bank regulators to deny permission when compliance is not met. I t is precisely h s leverage that can put financial pressure on institutions to a p to provide mortgage loans to qualified individuals whose income is below a cut-off point. For example, in 1984, eight community groups, called the Chicago Reinvestment Alliance, entered into an agreement with First Chicago Corporation to establish a S120 rniIlion, five-year lending program called the Neighborhod Investment and Revital- izanon Program (Wdstwk hstitute, 1984). Shortly thereafter,

Harris Trust and Savings Bank and Northern Trust Company en- mered into agreements with the alhance to provide $35 miliion and 518 mifion, respectively, for loan funds to m e t aeighboshmd credit rids. These agreemenu. reached b m u s e of threats by h e alliance to challenge the banks for non-compliance with CRA, compnse the Neighborhood Lendmg Programs of Chicago.

Each lending program has a review board that includes both community members and bank representatives, The board is the primary mtxhanisrn for a~counrabiiity when loan applications are reviewd, when policies for eacn program are discussed and de- fined. and when monitoring is done to ensure correspondence be- tween the bans and community needs. CRA Is generally consid- ered a success, particularly in terms of the dollars generated through loan programs that had not b e n available previously (Bradford, 1990). The agEment s are also notewofiy as an ex- ample of a partnership beruleen community organizations and banks, replacing a previous relacionship that was a k n hostile. According to Calvin Bradford. the review board is an essensial component of the success of the Neighborhood knding Pro-ms:

It has been h e review board proces that has wnttibuted the most to the success of the program. Where the review board did not b m m e a forum for discussion. the lending program suffered. Where the forum was fully used, issues were ad- dressed, differences were aired, changes were initiated in the progsams, and working compromiszs were reached, even when it was not possible to reach full agreement (Bradford. 1990. P. 7 ) -

Nonetheless, the Neighborhmd tending Pro~rams face chal- lenges. Bradford notes that the lack of public subsidies limits the ability to make private lending affordable to more residents and businesses. He also indicates ha t the success of the programs will depend on how federal regulators enforce not only the CRA but also the Equal Credit Oppomniry Act and the Fair Housing Act. He argues that regulators "need to develop enforcement smdards that reward reinvesment and allour for responsible experimenta- tion and lending produca and programs that reflect appropriate costs associated with sound loans and the response to real com- munity needs" (Bradford 1990, p. 1Q).

6 Teresa Gdrdova

Neighborhod Homing Services

In Pittsburgh, citizen reaction to redlining policies resulted in a program to redirect funds to a deteriorared neighborhood. Suc- cessful efforts in 1968 to forge a partnersnip among lenders. resi- dents, and the city served as she basis for the Urban Reinvestment Task Force recommendation to develop similar effom in other cines, Congressional support of the recommendation, led to the 1978 Neighborhd Reinvestment Corpora~on Act, whch gave rise to K e i g h b o r h d Housing Services W S ) throughour the countq.

In Chicago, MIS serves predominantly Black or Latino neigh- borhoods with hstories of redlining and disinvestment. NHS regards the neighborhood as the client and works with the resi- dents to build consensus regarding communiry improvement. Once this irsitial organizing is done, N H S helps facilitate access to lams for homeowners, particularly fmm banks that want to meet their lending requirements under CRA but may not want to deal wlrh residents duwrly. Beyond this brokerage function, NHS has a 52-4 d l i o n revolving loan fund wadable for acquisition or rehabititation costs. Sources for thrs fund include Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) money from she City of Chi- cago and private money from the Ford Founda~on.

NHS also helps propeny owners wark with insurance corn- panies that have traditionally r e d h d neighborhoods. It provides technical xsismce on pr0pen-y assessment, helps select contrac- tors, and even assists in the monitoring of contractors, In some cases, NHS has also become an owner, developer, and manager 05 propertv, as exemplified by h e 300 unirs it owns 1n the Austln and Gari5eld Park cornrnuniues of Chicago.

TEE IMPORTANCE OF KNOWLEDGE, MONEY, 19ND VISION

Community-based developers have u W a number of programs and mechanisms to supply affordable housing. Through resource- ful leadership and the development of technical. know-hew, com- munity initiauves have been made possible by cost-cutting mea- sures, stan-up funds, cranve finanang, and alternative ownershzp and management strucmres.

Rise of Ledemhip and Techca l KrwwHow

Community-based housing iniuatives have benefited from the rise of several nationwide nonprofit groups that serve as sources of expehzise to 1 4 development efforts. The National Housing Law Project, for example, spe~ializes in malung housing research avail- able to community-based orp izahons and housing activitists. The Local Initiatives Suppert Corporation (LISC), established in 1981, is an intermediary organization that provides technrcal and fmancial expertise to communiq-based organizations. LISC , with offices in several cities, has been insmmenral in guiding devel- opmenr projects with complicated financial strucrures and pm- nership agreements. This technical assistance and the hal-and- error expenence of cornmunip nonprofit organizations have re- sulted in a sephsticated, professional set of community develop ment acrors. These individuals from Chcago, Cleveland, Boston, Pittsburgh, New York, and many other cities have carried tbeic agenda through the 1980s and inro an em that demands endurance and creativity as community-based initiatives emerge as an even more crilical source of affordable housing for low- and moderate- income neighborhoods. The Chcago area can certainly boast of a sophisticated cadre of individuals and organizations that are sklled negotiators, developers, and organizers.

Cost- Curring Measures

The most serious obstacle to providing low-income housing is matchng the cost of developing that housing with the amount that a household is able to pay. Thus, the primary difficulty for a nonprofit developer (or, for that mamr, a for-profit developer) is how to keep the cost of housing low enough (while stil l maintain- ing high enough quality) so thar a low-income household can af- ford it. The fust thmg that the community group does. therefore, is to search for ways to cut the cons of acquiring the land or buildings to be developed or renovami. Finding the funds to ob- tain prDperty is more difficult. and there ate no tax incentives. Thus. the nonprofit developer. ~~metirnes in competition with for- profit developgrs (especially I:. gentrifying areas) swches for inexpensive ways te obtain property. The Cook County scavenger sale and properties in receivershp o f ~ n provide avenues ror property acquisition, especially in disinvested nejghborhds.

8 Teresa Cdrdova

The Cook Counsy Tax Reactivation Program, begun in 1983, is a g m d exampie of how I d rnunicipahties can create a means for quahfid nonprofit developers to acquire =-delinquent prop enies at a neghgible cost. Under this program, Cwk County ob- tains tax-dehquent propeny at the scavenger sale and, after clearing d liens on the property, makes it avdable to nonprofit community organizations at a minimal cost. The W d s t o c k Insti- tute, a not-for-profit agency that provides research and policy analysis, has deemed the pro@ a success despite minor adidmini- suative problems. In 1988, the institute described the program as "'exucrnely successful in generating savings totaling over S4 rnil- Iion to develepers arternpting to provide quality affordable housing for low- and moderate-income p p l e " (Woodsrock Institure. 1988b, p, iii). The County benefits both from the sale and from having properry returned 10 the tax rolls.

The City of Chicago has created programs to facilitate the sale of abandond buildings and has sueamirned the p r w s s to pur- chase vacant lots. fie Chicago Abandoned Propeq Program enables he City to obtain h e titles to abandoned prop? and, in turn, to transfer title to individuals or groups to either improve the property or demolish the buildings. Acquuing vacant lots in the city has been deemed a bureaucratic nighunare, and neighbosficmd groups have called for s m l i n i n g the acquisition process (Siewers. 1990). The Accelezatd City Real Estate Sales (ACRES) program is the outcome of this s a m n h i n g and p r e vides for s p l a l assistance ta community organizations and ozhers to purchase lots, sometimes for as little as one dollar. Through the ACRES program, the City uses a sealed bid process to sell surplus real estate ~ i f i c a l l y for prqierrs that increase the supply of low- or malerate-income housing. Interested applicants are able to obtain a Pist of city-ownled surplus propemes from the Chcago Depamenr of General Services. Methods LO reduce the acquisition costs for land or buildings to be renovated can be a crucial cost-cutting step in the development process.

Gmnrx for Srasr-Up Cosrs

Foundations have been an important source for start-up costs for both community organizations and specific projectu. Foundation commitment is iIIusmted by the creation of the National Commu- nity Development Initiative in February 1991 to provide a S62.5 million pool for loans to nonprofit neighborhood groups.

Seven foundations and the Prudential lnsumce Company are sup- plying the funds for pre-cotrsnucuon costs such as acquisition of property. Because it is difficult to obtain financing for this stage of development, a new funding source will enable a community group to move more quicMy to acquire a piece af desired prop erty. The John D. and Cathenne T. MacAnhur Foundation is a contributor to the fund, which adds to -their long list of efforts to support community development. Other conrributors include the L l l y Endowment, the Rockefeller Foundation. the Hewlett Foun- dation, the Knight Foundation, the Pew Charitable T m s ~ . and the Surdna Founda~on. Nonprofit goups in Chicago will receive S2 million of these funds. Most of this amount IS1 -6 million) will be placed in a working capital fund for easy-access leans (whlch will hopefully be supplemented by other local funds), with the re- mainder (S400,000) made available as loans to two development corporations to prduce housing (Reardon, 199 1).

Cremive Financing

During the 1980s, large d i m t federal subsidies were not imbly absent as a source of funding for low-income housing. Federal tax policy, however, provided incentives for corporanons to invest in low-income housing p m j m by gmting DX shelters such as accelerated depreciation and pzssive-loss dlowances. As a result of the Tax Reform Act sf 1986. tax shelters were modified. Indi- vidual investors obtained fewer incentives, but the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit enabled cosporauons to gain substantial tax benefits for investing in housing spitlcalll; for low-income households. Corporations that might desire the rax credit, but that may not be interested in the deve~opmtnt or manaFernenr of hous- ing, could exchange their financial investment far tax creditS obtained in a syndicated parttlership. The corporations also ben- efit from cash-flow disaibutions and sometimes appreciations in value. An added benefit is the bmst in their public image.

A key vehicle for facilitat-ing pmershrp financial packaging is the Chcago Housing P m e r s h p (CHP), which constitutes a network of resources available to comrnuniry-based groups and makes pmcular development projects possible. Members of the CHP include the Chicago Equiry Fund, LISC, the Chicago De- panment of Housing, the Illinois Housing Development Authority, ma-ior fmmcial institutions, and community-bared organizations. The CHP (together with the Boston Housing Pmership) is a prw

10 Teresa Cbrdovn

totype of "a new kind of I d institution, which orchesaates the acuvities of all the key actors in the development process who are needed to make high-volume delivery of low-income housing pas- sible without larae federal subsidies'" (Stegman and Holden, 1987, - - p. 103).

The Chicago Equity Fund I C E ) , created in 1985 ar member of the Chicago Housing Pamershp, is designed to a m c t corpo- rate investment for low-income housing in the city of Chicago and the broader metropolitan. area. CEF has a two-tie& smc- ture: As managing partner, it sells general pmership shares to corporate investors: the general parmershp then acquires a limited partnership interest in qualified housing projects. The cowrate investors earn profits through tax savings from the Law-Income Housing Tax Credit. More than 35 corporations have invested a total of $40 million since the inception of the fund, which often comprises one-third of the needed financing for a given project. A typical project is funded from at least h e e sources and may include CEF, a subsidized loan from USC. a below-market-rate loan from the Chcaga D e p m e n t of Housing, and a loan from a commercial bank (Stegman and Holdtn, 1987, pp. 106-107; Chicago Equity Fund, 1991).

The CEF has been used by a number of nonprofit developers, including Bethel New Life, Bickerdike Rdwelopment Corpora- tion, Hispanic Housing Development Corporation, Kenwd-Oak- land Community Organization, Lakefront SRO Corprarion. Latin United Community Housing Association (LUCHA), Peoples Hous- ing, the N e i g h b o r h d Institute, and Voice of the Pm~le in Up town. These and more than f ifrcn other development corpora- tions have met several criteria for access to CEF money: Flrst, the p r o j ~ t must be a mulri-family develapmmt with at least fif- teen units. Second, the developer must be eirhet a nonprofit orga- nization, in assmiation with a nonprofit developer for the ptqieco, or a for-profit developer "sanctioned" by the community. Tnird, the developer must provide wWiordable housing for households whose incomes do not exceed 60 percent of the Chicago-am me- dian income (accounting for household size). Finally, the pm!ect must enhantx the revitalization of the cornrnvnlty m whch the project exrsts (Chicago Equity Fund, 1991).

The growing need of CDCs for corpQ;rate equity investment, combined wirh the success of CEF, was the rmperus for LISC to establish the National Equity Fund w) in 1987. NW, which is based in Chicago, also involves corporations and businesses buying into a general parmership. LlSC 1s promoting the partner-

ship to companies throughout the counay and to businesses .in the l o d e s where the projects are to be develow. Ln its first six years, NEF r a i d mo;e than 3603 &ion fo; investment in hous- ing develo@ by CDCs in 5 1 different cities across the United States ( h u e , 1990; Merrion, 1990: Nauonal Equity Fund, 1993).

Another private source of financing for community-based housing development in Chiwgo is Community Investment Cor- poration (CIC), which is also a member of the Chicago Mousing hrmershp. CIC is a mortgage banldng fm created by Chicago- area financial institutions. It provides subsidized mongazes, infor- mation, and technical assistance and may also serve a ~ r o k e r func- tion in facilitating a loan from a cornrnerclal banker or a state agency.

The principal source of financing from szate government is the Illinois Housing Development Authority, which administers the Illinois Affordable Housing Trust Fund. At the l d level, both nonprofit and for-profit developers that provide and maintain af- fordable housing can draw on iunds made available through the Chicago Low-Income Housing Tmst Fund and adminisared by the City. The fund, intended to supplement other sources of funding, was established as a result of negotiations beween local housing groups. the Ciry, and developers of Presidential Towers, a major downtown aparsmenr complex rkat was subsidized through tax-ex- empt revenue bonds. The 1989 agnxment was a renegotiation of an arrangement made during the B y e administration and al- lows for grants, loans, and other non-equity finmcial assistance. The fund is intended to mis t persons whose incomes are at or k;elow 50 percent of Chicago's median income and who xc dis- abled. elderly, homeless, or single-room-occupancv residents.

At a time when most other federal funds for housmg were eliminated, Comrnuniq Development Block Grants (CDBGs) were an important, though insufficient, source of federal funds funneled to lmal entities. Under the Reagan administration, CDBG funds were cut 19 percent (not accounting for inflation), thus further reducing federal funds for nonprofit or community development corporation activities ( S c h w , Felauro, and Hoffman, 1988, p. 171). The National Affordable Housing Act of 1990 wdl gen- erate new sources of funding h a t can be used by nonprofit orga- nizations. The HOME Investment Parmerships program prwraes block grants to state and l d governments for the development of affordable housing by way oi rehabilitation, new consarction, acquisiuon, and the establishment of private-public partnerships. At least 15 petcens of hese funds must be reserved for community

12 Teresa Cdrdova

housing development organizations. In order for any state or local entip to receive any of these HOME funds, i t must complete a Comp~hensrve Housing Affordabiliy Strategy (CHAS), which the City of Chicago has done with the help of numerous community a~ganizarians and advocacy groups.

hmvan*ve Managemem and Ownetship Srnrctures

The philosophical orientation of community-based initiatives results in priority being placed on development projects that enhance commuruty empowerment. h d d , many development projects originate directZy from community efforts that began as straregles for community conml, but more immediately as a means of responding to a housing crisis.

Although it is important to wucion ag&st seeing these "self- help" swtegies as a panacea for the uman housing crisis, they represenr a significant outcome of urban p a s t movements for better housing conditions and have been an imponant means for dvaging deteriorated prope?, offwing better senices, and enhancmg autonomy and control of neighborhoods.

As the housing movement has become more sophishted. it has also looked for creative ownershp models bat preserve some of the values of community-based ini&~ves. One such model is the community land trust (CLTj. The Institute for Community Economics (ICE), based in Springfield, Mzssachusetts, develqml the community land msr model and now helps other organkasions throughout the counuy to form CLTs. By provi lng direct wh- nical assistance, disseminating educational matends such as handbooks and videos, and organizing confemces, ICE has worked to promote the form of community-conmlled develop- ment. The community land trust is essentially an organization establish& to "hold" property on behalf of a community or indi- viduals within a community. The nonprofit organizarion is "dem- wratically structured," and the membership elects a rotating board of trustees.

The community land trust acquires land, retains title in peqx- tuity, and then leases h e land to those who are interested in using tfie land as determined by a CLT planning prmess. The lease may either be long-term or life-time and may be passed on to heirs, Tenants in the cooperative can earn equity through their investments in improvements but not as a result of increases in marker value. 'X?us equity remains with the community land trust.

Cornmunip-Bared Initinrives in Crticago 13

One of the apparent benefits of tkis model is that leaseholders have the ~pportunip to own propem when banks may otherwise declare them ineligible due to insufjlicient income or down pay- ment. Leaseholders have the same assurances of seurity as regu- lar propem-awners and can still draw on their equity. The com- munitv benefits in its ability to maintain conml of the land and to resist-the impact of pensrj;h~tion or owner abandonment. The CLT, because of its nonprofit goals. has access to grants, loan funds, and its own equity to meare additional land trusts.

The CLT is an interes~ng approach to providing individuals and communities an opgosruniry for affordable ownershp. The model is constsucted a a chailenge to the notion of property as a commodity and resrs on the prhci~le that the speculative housing markets weaken a community's srability and autonomy. The dem- ocratic s m c m o€ the land mst is intended to enhance the individual's connecrion to the community.

In Chcago, L i e Neighborhood House (on the city's near nonhwest side) and Peoples Housing (in the Rogers Park neigh- b o r h d ) are two community-based organizations that are attempt- ing to develop community land rusts in their neighbornwds. Recognizing the importance oi leadership ra ensure success of a community land msr, they are dtveioping their plans in conjunc- tion wth leadership training. The intention is for these trainees to assume key roles in the organizing that is necessary LO build community awareness of the land vusr project.

Ene Neighborhmd House has had to conand with the high cost of acquisition in a neighborhood that i s rapidly gennifying and, in farr. sees its effom as p m of a larger st~ tegy to stabiilze the n e i ~ h b o r h d . The otganuation is air0 drawlng on existing resources in the neighborhood x thev s e k partners such as Bick- erdike Development Corporation, a -not-for-profit developer. In addition ro the normal cornplexiues of a devctopment project, the community land trust design requires a complex legal suucture that depends on the howiedge of experienced individuals.

Paoples Hous~ng has established an ownership model that is a hybrid of a ca rnmunq land ma. a housing cooperative, and a mutual housing association. The Cooperative Ownetshp Project (CO-OP), a shared equity cmperative, is conceived as an 'km- powement program, bolstesing inciependence and self-confidence, and f u l f ~ g the American dream of horneownershp for our par- ticipants" (Pmples Housing, 1991). Peoples Housing has pur- chased buildings and convened them to coopcratlvely owned and managed uniu. while retaining title to the land. The buildings

are owned by the cooperative corporation; residents purchase shares in the cooperative with a low down-payment. T h i s offers the benefits of homeownership while also requiring management responsibilities (along with other CO-OP members). Peoples Housing is providing management and ownershp skills training as part of implementation of the CO-OP Project.

PARTNEWHPS AND ADVOCACY

There are two i m p o m s characteristics of community-based efforts to suppiy affordable housing that merit iurtfier discussion. First, the most obvious aspect of community-based efforts in Chicapo to provide affordable housing is that they are not sltrictly "self-help" efforts, but rather require several players acting in pannership. These pamers include other community-based organjzauons and development corporations; advwacy groups such as the Chicago Rehab Network or the Chicago Affordable Housing Coatition: re- search entities such as university-based cenrers or policy institutes; technical assistance providers; private foundations: financial in- stitutions and brokers; and I d , stare, and federal agencies. The seriousness of the housing crisis and the complexities of respond- ing to the crisis warrant this widespread involvement. Financial partnershps have been especially key in housing development.

Second, a d v m y and activism have been the n m s q ingre- dients leading to legislation, various government programs, the forming of partnerships, and continued pressure to deal wih the housing crisis. W e each community-based organization may play an advmcy sole, there are other organizations hat exist ex- clusively for the purpose of rbrgmg paths to establish programs and policies friendly to the low-income housing development pro- cess.

Financial Pnmterships

It is imponant to point out the key role that community-based ini- tiatives have played not only in calling attentian to the housing problems in their respective neighborhcds but also in providing Iadershp in forging partnerships to respond to those problems. Partnerships such as the Chicago Equity Fund and the Chicago Housing Partnership did not always arise easily and, in some in- stances, required federal mandates to provide the leverage. Yet,

the partnerships have apparently become essential vehicles for successful development p r o j ~ t s and are thus wonhy of examina- tion. The syndicared relat~onship, which involves tax credits in exchanze for investment dollars, is a particularly important pan- nershp to waluate because of the large portion of layered finan- cing that comes from this reladonshp.

A repart prepared far Peoples Housing suggests that syndi- cated relationships need to be examined very carefully sa that the partnerships maximize affordabhry and long-term control over the property. The report argues that sufficient time may not have been spent in assessing past agrements and thar Peoples Housing "may lose control of two of its buildings, and may not be able to afford to exercise an option on a third building" Wvine, 198&, p. 3). Thus, the report advises thar an understanding of revised tax regulations and past experiences should become the basis for w e f u l agreement about the "right, duties, and obligations" of each party and the amount of equity that will be generated.

The Chicago Equity Fund can yield up to 30 percent return on an investment. h an effon to reach that figure, the CEF may agree to a lower equity, thus resulting in higher fmancing costs and smaller fees for the nonprofit developer. Conflict may, then, characterize the negotiations, p*cularly as communiry develop ment organizations develop the sophistication to enhance their position m these aprezments. Far example, an article in Crain's Chicago Business reports thar community groups were expressing "disgruntlement" with the Chicago Quiry Fund and asserting a need to negotiate better terms. One commuruty developer was quoted as saying: "They are a pain in the ass, to rell you the truth" (Mernon, 1990).

Rachel Bran, an observer of the communiry housing develop- ment p r m s s in Boston, suggests that public-private parmershps are problematic because the profit goals of private developers are in conflict with the public need for low-cost housing (Brazt, 1987). She maintains, for example, that use restrictions for limited time (e.g., 15-20 years) are not in the public inrerest and that measures need to be created to anticipate the expiration of benefits of a given program. The 1986 Tax Reform Act, for example, allows tax credits for fifteen years and requires low-income occupancy for the same time perid-but not necessariiy beyond hat, Long- term availability of low-income housing is not guarantd beyond these 5hon time periods.

Bratt argues that partnerships should maximize the public good and that incenuves should be built in to encourage Investment,

16 Teresa ardova

cost containment, and adequate maintenance and repairs. An over-reliance on tax incentives as the foundation for subsidized housing, she argues, is not in the public inrerest and should not be the substitute for funding from stare and federal governments for subsrdles. Bratt suggests thalt the conflict betwen private and public inwests, which is often ignored in policy debatcs and deri- sions, should be more closely examind in the effort lo provide decent affordable housing (Bsatt, 1987) .'

Urban protest in the 1960s against housing conditions and neigh- borhood deterioration was the Eomnner of community-based ef- forts .to confront the housing crisis. Advocacy and actrvism con- tinue to play a significant role in community-based initiatives to obtain resources ro develop affordable housing. AlPllthough the possible examples are extensive, we n m i only highlight a few to illusrnte Lhe importance of community-based adviocacy and acriv- ism.

The Commu~ty Reinvestment Act, as a leverage for loan funds, and she Home Martgage Disclosure Act are d ~ r m results of lobbyrng efforts Id by the National Training and Infomarion Center w C ) . T h s Chicago-based organization has worked closely witfi other groups to develop home lending agreements with banks and rnongagt assmiations that not ody crmk mon- gage lending funds but also adjust lorn eligibility levels and lower down-payment and housing costs. In 1989, for example, NJlC w x the impetus behind the formation of a national partnershi to provide over $40 million in iunds for affordable hourlng. he parmership also included the Federal National Mortgage Associa- tion (FbMA), General Electric Mortgage Insurance Companies (GEMICO), sixteen financial institutions. and seveni community groups. This home lending program also included a p m e n t s to make it as ier for lawer-income families to purchase houses. For example. both FNMA and GEMICO a g m d to waive or lower certain loan eligibility requirements. including allowing 33 percent of income re be spent on housing rather than the normal 28 pet- cent and allowing sellers or donors to pay the closing costs. Ad- ditional activities of NllC include training, consulting, and tech-

- -

I See also Bratt's chaprer in &is volume (Bran, 1993).

nical assistance, pmcuiarly relating to CRA agreements. EJTIC's affiliate, National Peoplc's Actlon, has been instrumental in b m g - ilg tozethrr housing advocacy groups throughout the counw. This coahnon mwts annually and will oRen lobby groups such as the National Association of Home Builders. h April 1989. Na- tland People's Actlon met wi?h Jack Kernp. seezlerasy of WUD in the Bush administration, and argued for increased involvement of the federal government in the housing crisis. The coahtian spe- cificdly pushed for a national housing rmst fund and for expanded hornawnershlp p r o m s . Gale Cincarta, the group" executive director, also argued for expansion of the Federal Housing Ad- minismtion, low-income housing tax credits, and funding assis- tance for tenants to buy out the owner of a propeny. National People's Action has also led successful moves against redlining.

The Chmwgo Low-lncorne Housing Trust Fund was established as a result af the efforts of a coaiition that included the Chicago Coalition for the Homeless, the Chcago 1992 Committee, the Statewide Housing Action Coalition, and h e Balanced G r o u d ~ Coalition. The mst fund, a source of financial assistance for the lowest-income residents in Chicago. was enacted by the Chcago City Coundl in 1989 and was incorparated as a nonprofit organi- zacion in 3990. The Uhois Affordable Hous~ng Trust Fund, a source of grants and loans far pmjecrs for low- and very low- icsome ind~viduals and familres, is also a direct consequence of community initiation. The Statewide Housing Acnon Coahtion proposed the establishment of h s trust fund, which wilI generate additional dollars from developers' q u i r y , loans. and other specid financing programs. Other roois that resulted from housing activ- Ism include the Cook County Tax Reactivation Program and the NejgKoorhmd tending Programs. Tne Chicago Rehab Nerwork and the Chicago Affordable Housing Coahtion are active p d c i - pants in shaping affordable hocsino, poiicy in Chcago.

Housing activists and a d v m w are impszant actors in the effom to supply much-nded atfordable housing at a time when political and economic factors combine to exacerbate crisis con- ditions-not only for iow-income residents but also for the middle class. Alliances ax, therefore, essential among housing advocates 00th I d and national), community-based development corpora- tions, and hose comrnltted to a housing agenda that meets the needs of low- and mderate-income individuais and families.

Despite the successes and contributions of community-based interests, efforts have been made to discredit the work of cammu- nity development groups and to label them as "anti-development"

FIcCarron, 39881. Similarly, the media rarely report the accom- plishments of community-based ini.ciativts, d e s p i ~ press releases announcing the projects. Nevertheless, community-based groups have proved lhernselves to be able developers committed to the ideas of community involvement and empowerment: and have come forward as cooperative partners in joint venrures. It is appropriate to recognize these contributions and seek funher policies to en- hance their capacities to meet the needs of their respective neigh- borhoods.

CONCLUSION

Throughout the 1980s, community-based development corporations and advocacy organizations were key acrors in responding to the affordable houslng crisis. Duxlng that d m d e , for example, over 6.400 housing units were created by nonprofit developers in the city of Chicago (Chicago Rehab Network, 1990, p. 20-21). Lob- bying efforts by housing advocates were influential in creating several p r o p m s by pnvate and public entities that facilitated these deveiopments. Community-based iniriatives have been espe- cially imporrant because of their cornmrment to neighborhood preservation, pro-senant perspxtives, and service to low- and moderate-income househoIds.

Despite the importance of community-based initiatives in Chi- cago's housing smtegles, economic conditions and inadequate government fundlng have "pushed community groups into a lead- ing role which thev lack the resources to fulfill" (Gerhardstein, 1990). Bran, however, makes the argument that "given sufficient financial and technical suppans, cornmuniy-based groups could be cena-al to a new strategy for producing, rehabilitating, and man- aging housing" @nn, 1989a, p. 286). In addiiron to the financial and techcal supports, obstacles to the development process should be replaced with policies that enhance community-based initiatives for affordable housing.

Although community groups may be able to boast of numerous successful development projecn throughout Chicago, the problem of availabiliry of affordable housing to low- and moderate-income households remains at crisis proponionz. Community groups con- tinue to express concern for the high cost of housing psoducuon and the difficulty in keeping renB low. In fact, much of the housing prducuon is meeting moderate-income needs, while Iow-

income households continue to face "shelter poverty" or the threat of homelessness.

Thus, researchers, commentators, and practitioners continue to argue that, given the c u m n t economics of housing, the flow of federal subsidles is essentd (Gerhardstein, 1990; Bran, 1989a; Bany, 1988). ??mmas Lenz of LISC has d d : "There is no ex- cuse for not having a federal presence. . . . It's folly to think weVe going to find soIutions to homelessness and the low-income housing cnsis without it"' (Gerhardstein, 1990, p, 28). Richard Hamack, corporate senior wce-president at First National Bank of Chcago, h expressed a s i d u sentiment, noting that "we just m't prduce an apartment that low-income people can afford without a subsidy" (Gerh;trdstein. 1990. p. 28). B m argues even further for a federally based s u p p n system for community-based housing. "In addition to providing adequate financial resources, it should alsu include a high-quahry technrcat assistance compo- nent, a mechanism to a q u m imd and buildings, and an evalua- tion and information-shanng network" @ran, 1989b. p. 323). Although the National Affordable Housing Act of 1990 resumes some fiow of federal dollars, many are skepdcal that it will be sufficient to adequately address the crisis.

The economics of providing affordable housing to low-imme households remains a fundamental concern. In effect, the costs of housing p d u c t l o n continue to rise while the earning power of households declines, suggesting the need for findmental evalua- tion of an economic system that does not make it feasible to produce low-cost, decent housing. It is therefore desirable to investigate the recommendations of some who suggest a "demm- modi ficazlon" of housing thar values st>cial ownerslup, public fmanung, and equitable resource allmation. n o s e advmt ing this position argue that prducing, owning, and financing housmg should be removed from the for-profit sector. In its place, they atgue for the primacy of a "principle of smiallp determined need" (Achmber t and Marcuse, 1986, p. 477; Stone, 1986: Meyerson, 1986b). Such an emphasis would include programs for public fi- nancing and social production and urouid allow for social conno1 of land, resident conml of nei_ehborhds, housing choice, and equitable resource allmation (Stone, 1986).

Community-based initiatives ace faced, therefore, with a set of smial goals that promote tenant control and homeownership in a housing system that is inherently based on a s ~ u i a t i v e market that keeps housing pnces clirnbrng while the distribution of income remms unequal. The tensions between the nonprofit onentation

20 Teresa Cdrdova

of the community-based housing developer and the perspectives of for-profit enti ties are exernpiifid in the syndicated relationships in which the nonprofit developer is interested in keeping the rents low and the occupancy stable, while the private investor is inter- ested in maximizing profit in a speculawe market that encourages h g h turnover. The tension plays itself out at the negotiarion table when determining the amount of return for the investor. Tne partnership, in fact, is an interts~g one in its coalition of divergent interests, each with an eye toward the deveiopment of affordable housing yet for markedly different r w n s . Indeed, these partnerships warrant close observation and policy andysis not only b a u s e of their importance in Chrcago for financing &ordable housmg but also as a case study of how the private, for-profit sector can merge with the nonprofit sector in meeting the housing needs of low- and rndesate-income households. There needs to be a careful examination of these parmerships over time. A housing deal with several layers of financing may acm- ally result in rasing the cost of production, given that develop- ment fees and financing costs are added on at each level of financing. Furthermore, JdFmgh the financing that emerges from this syndicated, tiered fmancmg rs creative, it should nat replace the r ~ l e of government in ensunng housing as a fundamental right.

Community groups in Chrcago have demonswwi their sophis- tication, resourcefulness, cornmtment, and ability to forge part- nerships. Beyond the formal syndicated relauonships, alliances have been forrned among community groups. These idiances are facilitated by numerous citywide coalrtions such as the Chicago Rehab Nerwosk, the Community Workshop for Economic Devel- opment (CWED), the Chicago Association of Neighborhood De- veiopment Organizations (CANDO), and orhers. Collabom~ve efforts are also wmmon between community o r g h t l o n s a d research entities such as the Center for Urban Economic Devel- opment and the Vmrhees Cenkr for Neighborhood and Comrnu- nity Improvement at the University of Illinois at Chicago. These alliances should be nurtured and expanded to avoid duplication of effort and to expand the strength and sophistication of the com- munity housing approach. The allrances are especially imporrant because of the wide range of sophistication, leadership, and tech- nical know-how h a t exnsts among community-based developers, These partnerships should be pursued as a means for ane commu- nity-based o r g u t i o n to work directly with another organization whle it puts together a development project.

Some of h e most i m p o m t alliances are those between corn- rnunity development coqmranons and advwcy o r g ~ t i o n s , as well as among advmacv organizations. Given the critical role that advocacy has played in esrablirhing the progmms that fadlitate community development, and given the hisrov of housing policies without that role, the neighborhmd movement is an essential fea- ture of affordable housing policies, The role that the community housing developer plays when it negotiates with for-profit devel- opers and bankers is not irreconcilable with the role of advocate

- for housing policies that promore affordable housing for low- and moderate-income households;. Although a division of labor be- tween development and advocacy may exist, many organizations combine the roles. Either way, close connections between devel- opment and advocacy are essentd for the success of cornmuniry- based initiatives in housing policy.

Many organizations also combine heir dwelopment strategies with efforts to enhance community empowerment. Latin United Cornmuniv Housing Associadon, for example, erg- blmk dubs to promote leadership, comrnuniry involvement, and the nouon that the neighborhd belongs to the people who live here. Community development organindons are beginning to putsue more widely a smtegy so promote tenant rnanagernenr and awner- ship prqi~ectr. Community land trusts and efforts similar to the Cooperative Ownehshp Pro:rect initiated by Peoples Housing are examples of innovative avpmaches to housing, whereby an organi- zation is created te hold land in rmst on behalf of the individuals who buy into the s.tructused non~rotit corporation. These joint- ownership ventures are consistent wirh she philosophical oriena- tian of community-based initiatives rhat mess community owner- ship w d empowerment, while d o u i n g an individual household to be the beneficiary of both affordable housing and community in- volvement. The biggest problem that community land m s t s face is access to adequae, affordable financing. In addiGon, because of the complicard legal smcmres rhat must be worked out, tech- n i d expertise is critical. Thus, policies should be encouraged that facilitate the f m c i n g and re~hnical how-how for establtsh- kg community land trusts. Groups such as Peoples Housing that have made the effort to create a communiry land trust will be im- postant in both sharing technical expertise and recommending pli- cres to implement these land rusts.

F M I y , urban restrucmting and industrial relocation are se- sulling in a shifr in suburban populations. As many suburban mu- nicipalities absorb the labor pool that is moving nearer to the

22 Teresa Cbrdow

suburban jobs, the crisis in housing will reach beyond the city limits. Up to now, however, very few community orplmhnons have arisen in the suburbs to meet these housing needs. Croups such as New Cities Community Deveiopment Cornration in southern Cook County have reiid p r i m d i on funds-from HUD and from the Federal Home Loan Bank. There are ~erhans lessons to be gained from the effectiveness of community' in Chicago that can be applid in the outlying meuopolitan arm.

Community-based initiatives to provide affordable housing ar t a result of a cumulative base of experience and expertise. Despite the creative approaches to layered financing, she main problems c o n ~ u e to be the marsiveness of the housing crisis and the eco- nomics of housing prduction, financing, and ownershp. None- theless, the successes of community-based initiatives warrant re- spect, but more important, more resources. W e r s h p training, cost-cutting measures, technical assistance, loan programs, federal subsidies, and equitable syndication reiationships are among the resources hat, if directd toward community orpmations, wdl improve heir ability to bring a neighborhod agenda to solutions to the crisis in housing.

REFERENCES

Achtenbert, Emily hadise, and Peter Marcuse (1986). "Toward the Decornmcdification of Emsing." In Rachel Bratt, Chester Hartman, and Ann Meyerson, eds., Crirical Perspecrives on Homing . Philadelplxa: Temple University Press.

Barry, Patrick (1988). "Gimme Shelre:: Housing Crunch Hits City's Mddle Class," Chicago Emerprise, May 1988, pp. 1- 5.

Bickerdike Redevelopment Corporation (1985). Annual Report, 1985. Chicago.

Bradford, Calvin (1990). Pametships fur Reinvesmreru: An EvaIuuzion of the Chicago Neighborbod Lading Proflrcuns. Chcago: National Training and Information Cenrer.

Bratt, Rachel G. (1987). "hva te Owners of Subsid~zed Housing vs. Public Goals: Conflicting Interests in Resyndication." Journnl of the Amncon Planning Associaion, Summer 1987, pp. 328-336.

(1989a). "Community-Based Housing in Massachusetts: Lessons and Limits of the Sute's Suppon System." In Sara

Communiry-Bared Iniriariws in Chicago 13

Rosenbeq and Chester H a m , eds. R o w i n g Issues of rhe 19%. New York: Praeger.

(1 989b). Rebuilding a h w l n c o m e Homing Policy. PkiladeIplua: Temple University Prcss.

(1993). "Nonprofit Housing Developmenr in Boston. " h this volume.

Chicago Equity Fund (1991). "Fact Sheet." Chicago Rehab Network (1990). 7he Chicago Affordabk Huwing

Foct Book: A Resource for Communiry Aclion, Chicago: Ch- a g o Rehab Network.

Gerhardstein, h u i s (1990). "Housing: Nonptofirs Attempt to FiU Void Created by Federal Curs, " Chicago Entqrise, Feb-

1990, pp. 15-17, 28. Kenwd-Oakland Communiry Organization (1990). Notice for

March for Affordable Housing. Chcago, October 17, 1990. Keyes, Langley (1971). "The Role of Nonprofit Sponsors in the

Prduction of Housing." In Papem Subm~rred ro Srrbcommrr- ree on Housing, Panels on Homing Psoducrion, Housing De- mand, andDeveloping a Suirable Living Environmenr, Part 1. Washmgton, D.C.: Committee on Banking and Currency, U .S. House of Representa~ves, 92nd Congress, 1st session, pp. 159-181.

Laue, Sue (1990). "Housing Peace Pact," Chicago Enterprise, JulylAugust 1990, p. 11.

Leanard, Paul A., Cushmg N. Dolbeare, and Edward B. Lazcre (1989). A Place to CaII Home: The Crisis in Housing for the Poor. Washmgton, D. C.: Center on Budget and Policy Pri- onties.

Levine, Peter (1988). "Syndicating the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit: From the Perspective of the Community Development Corporation. " Chicago: Pmples Housing, April 12, 1988.

McCarron, John (1988). "Chcago on Hold." Series of seven articles in the Chicago Tribune, August 28-September 4, 2 988.

Memen, Paul (1990). "Low-Income Housing Funder Shows Cracks in Foundation: Chicago Equity Fund" Fat Investor Terms Irk Developers, " Crain 's Chicago Business, March 1 9 , 1990.

Meyerson, Ann (1986a). 'Housing Abandonment: The Role of Institutional Mongage Lenders." In Rachel Bran, Chester Hartman, and Ann Meyerson, eds., Cn'rical Perspecrives on Homing. Philadelphia: Temple Universiry Press.

(1986b). "Deregulaaon and the Restructuring of the Housing Finance System, '9 Lnchel Bran, Chester Hanman,

24 Teresa Cdrdova

and Ann Meyerson, eds., Critical Perspecrives on Housing. PMadetpb: Temple University Press.

National Equity Fund (1993). Press relm. Chicago, January 1993.

Peoples Housing (n-d.), "Ineduction to Peoples Housing. " Chcago: Pmples Housing.

(1991). "The Co-opesative Ownership Project." Chi- cago: Peoples Housing.

Pickens, Donis (1989). "Communiries Have to be Developed from Within: A Conversation with Dorris Pickens, President of The Neighborhd Institute. " Reprint from Cooperm've Enterprise, Summer 1989. Washington, D. C. : NCB Develop ment Corporation.

Reardon, Patrick T. (1991). "Housing Groups Get Shot in Arm, " Chrcago Tribune, Febfuary 28, 1991, sec. 2, p. 3.

S c h w m , David C., Richard C. Ferlauto, and Dartiel N. Hoffman (1988). A NEW Houring Policy for America: Recapnrring rhe American Dream. Philadelpha: Temple University Press.

Sheft, Mark (1 99 1). A Place to Call Home: 27ze Crisis in How- ing for the Poor-micago, Illinois, Washington, D.C. : Cen- ter an Budget and Policy Priorities.

Siewers, AIf (l990). "Activists Want City's Vacant Lots Put to Use," Chicago Sun E m s , March 15, 1990, p. 4.

Stegrnan, Michael A,, and J. David Holden (1987). Nonfederal Housing Programs: How States and Localzries are Responding to FederaI Curbackr in Low-Incorn Housing. Washington, D.C.: Urban Land Institute.

Stone, Michael (1986). "Housing and the Dynamics of U.S. Cap- italism. " In Rachel Bratt, Chester Harunan, and Ann Meyer- son, eds., Cnrical Pernpecnves on Housing. Philadelpha: Temple University Press.

(1989). " S helter-Poverty in Boston: Protrlern and Pro- gram." In San Rosenbeq and Chester Hartman, eds., Hous- ing Issues of tfre 1990s. New York: Praeger.

Voss, Ron (1990). "What's Affordable? The True Cost of Hous- ing." h Z3re Chicago Amrdable Housing F a a Book. Chi- cago: Chicago Rehab Network.

Woodstcck Institute ( 1984). Neighborhood Rainvermrent Pun- nenhrp: Community Groups Lead rhe Wq for Firsr Chicago Corporaion. Chicago: Wwdstock Institute.

(1988a). 7 7 ~ 1lIinoi.s Affordable Housing T w r F w d : A Working Proposal of rhe Srasewide Holrsing Action Coali- !ion. Chicago: Wmdstock Institute.

(198 8b). From ObsracIe fo Oppornmiry: An Evaluan'on T i h e Mulnfanuanu& Tar Reacnvarion Program. Chicago:

W d s t o c k Institute.